Which telelens is best for handheld shooting?

[dirk_jan_hoek]

Hi,

 

I have owned a 28-200 mm lens, it broke. I have replaced it with an

28 mm fixed lens but I miss the long focal length. I'd like to buy a

new 200 or 300 mm lens. Zoom from 100 or so would be nice, but I

could do without.

Weight is an issue however. I am a cyclist and do long mountaintrips.

I can only take a tabletop tripod and will do a lot of handheld

shooting. Another issue is the build quality, the broken 28-200 mm

wasn't my first broken lens. Optical quality is also important, I'd

like to be able to make a4-prints. My budget is about $500.

 

I am tempted by the 75-300 IS EF. I have also seen a secondhand 80-

200L 2.8mm for $500. I wonder if the 2.8 aparture allows the same

handheld shuttertimes as the 5.6 from the 75-300 with IS? Is the

extra weight of this lens a problem for handheld shooting (1300g vs

700 for the 75-300 IS EF)? And could a tabletop tripod handle such a

big lens?

 

Which would be the best compromise for my conflictory needs? Are

there alternatives? Thanks!

[dennis_davidson1]

If you are talking about Canon lenses, the cheap 75-300 is a mediocre lens. The 80-200L is a MUCH better lens, and allows for constant f-ratios across all focal lenghts, but I question your criteria as a cyclist carrying a lens. A much better choice for your application would be the Canon 28-105 general-purpose lens, which has a more useable range and a great reputation as a sharp, high quality lens for the Canon body. The variable f/ratio is not as much of a consideration if the camera body is able to compensate and you have the light to take pics at f/5.6 or more. Myself, I would take a P&S in the back pocket of my jersey and hope for the best.

 

Dennis

[jay_.]

My choice for your particular situation would be the 28-135 Image Stabilizer lens and a Kenko 1.5x teleconverter (the $50 one). That will get you to 200mm with the IS still active (though not AF), with optical performance no worse than the 75-300IS at the 200mm mark...and that lens is really dreadful past 200mm anyway. However since you have a 28 and said specifically you want something on the long end, my choice would be the 100-400IS...however it is out of your price range. If you do opt for the 80-200/2.8 (or a Sigma 70-200/2.8HSM APO, which would be about the same price in mint used condition), I would suggest getting a monopod. Used properly (angled out in front of you so it makes a tripod with your own two legs)you will get good results with it, and it will serve you much better than a table tripod outside of populated areas, where walls, benches, posts and doorways are scarce.

[daniel flather]

The 100/2 might be good for you. It is light and small and you can use it in so many other situations too. A 1.5tc if you need 150mm in a pinch.

[eosdoc]

$USD 500 will get you a used EF 200mm f/2.8 L lens (the lens that I

thought than <a href=

"http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=252286"

>Dan-the-man</a> was going to suggest).

<P>

It (the lens) is eminently hand-holdable, is amazingly light, fast, sharp,

and well-built. You do not need to worry about making A4 or larger

prints.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>The IS on the 75-300 gets you an extra two stops, roughly, of handholding, which makes up for it being two stops slower than the 80-200. So in that regard, they're equally handholdable, but certainly not equal lenses. The 80-200 is much sharper, and its faster maximum aperture gives you the option of higher shutter speeds to freeze action, extends flash range and produces shallower DOF and better background blur; the 75-300 gives you greater DOF at equivalent handholdability (e.g. if there's only enough light to shoot the 80-200 @ f/4, you could shoot the 75-300 @ f/8 due to IS). The extra mass of the 80-200 can help keep it steady when you start shooting, but if your arms and shoulders aren't particularly strong, you may find them getting tired much more quickly than with the 75-300.</p>

 

<p>You said a zoom would be nice but not necessary; with that in mind, the previous suggestion of the 200/2.8 is a good one. It's undoubtedly a professional-quality lens, and less tiring than the 80-200. A brand new 200/2.8 costs USD640 at B&H, and I'm sure you could find a used one in good shape for around what the 80-200 costs.</p>

[john_paskey]

The 28-135 IS. Forget the tripod. I am an avid backpacker and was really struggling with the weight over convenience issue. I switched from nikon to canon because of lenses like this. I can now leave the tripod at home and hand shoot from dusk till dawn with 100 speed film. No, the lense isn`t the sharpest but it does take great pictures when stoppped down (an easy thing to do when you can shoot at f/8 -- 1/15 sec and not worry about it).

[yakim_peled1]

I second the 200/2.8 USM L.

[dirk_jan_hoek]

Thanks for all the help. I will try to find a secondhand 200 2.8L, I think that will suit me best.